I can't be that hard on Joe. FEMA's a mess, (has been on and off for decades) and there's a whole federal bureaucracy full of redundant agencies. So why not get rid of some and fold their responsibilities into other existing entities?

Of course I'd rather we get rid of Homeland Security entirely - we already had various agencies doing what they do.

FEMA has has its problems, I don't think anyone could deny that. FEMA should be a professional, well-organized Agency that has the luxury of not only responding in the short term, but planning for the long term. The reality of our political system means FEMA is blown by the same changeable political winds as other Agencies, but FEMA is one area where that kind of yes-no-stop-go process can cause the most damage.

But obviously my #1 objection is right there in your second point. Homeland Security is already on its way to being five times as big a mess as any other government Agency and much of what it theoretically does is redundant. I didn't like the idea when the Democracts floated it and I didn't like it when the Bush Administration adopted it.

Sticking to the point (tough for me), I think that disaster recovery is an entirely different subject than port or airline security or tracking down extremist/terrorist groups on USofA soil. What FEMA is supposed to do is pretty clear. Shoving those duties into the chaos that is Homeland Security is just asking for trouble.